Perhaps you can enlighten me

[Guy Gregory]

Sorry, folks, but the salmon discussion confuses me, still. I'm an inland guy who lives where we killed all anadromous fish years ago. And while we have similar discussions on predators with resident fish (Pelicans at Rocky Ford for example) the ones about salmon and steelhead still boggle my mind.

Every year or two (even before the internet) we're treated to statements from folks who are familiar with these fisheries about predators. Sea Lions, seals, Caspian Terns, Cormorants, smallmouth bass, now or soon Northern Pike, Northern Pikeminnow, etc., etc. Some folks cry "These critters are 'taking our fish'". And there's a popular cry to kill them in the act. And a complaint that rules prohibiting that killing are misguided at best, a conspiracy of enemies (Them!) at the worst, followed by suggestions of wanton violation of those rules (the Shoot, Shovel, and Shutup solutions).

It looks to me that wildlife are just trying to make a living like everyone else. It doesn't take long for a fish-eating creature to figure out where the outfall of a hatchery is, or the base of a fish ladder, or some other "fish-aggregator" is built. If you don't believe me, count the bald eagles at the Prince Rupert salmon boat dock when the fleet comes in. Anyway, once wildlife figures out where lunch is, they eat it. And they tell their buddies, and they eat there, too. In human terms, it seems a lot like the line leading up to the trailer where they hand out gummint cheese, or like the line of trout anglers below every bottom draw dam in the West. Eat where the food is, fish where the fish are. It's not reallly their fault we've skewed the catch per unit effort in the predators' favor, really.... We built this stuff.

So, should we kill wildlife for what seems like rational behavior? Really? Isn't there some other solution? Seal resistant nets 500 yards down from the hatchery outfall? Something? I don't hear the fish farming guys complaining about seals around their net pens.....do they know something we could use?

Who's at fault here?

 

[JS]

Hey, I just want to hug seals too….these guys just want to shoot them all up. I’m with you, bud, live and let live.





















Unless they take MY fish, then I get angry and stab stab stab.

 

[ABITNF]

Seals? Sealions? Yeah no problem. No problem at all. I might have a fish or two left after they've done.

 

[wanderingrichard]

The one problem I see with the suggested nets, is that these critters are also somewhat land mobile. So they can drag their carcasses around the nets, unless there's an adjoining deterrent on the shoreline, they'd just go around.

Too, there's also the question of what size the mesh should be. it has to be big enough to allow the fish, even the larger specimens, through but keep out the predators. Up to a certain point, it might work, but bear in mind, these critters come in a variety of sizes, so some might be able to squeeze through.

Then again, theres the ocean going ship and barge traffic on the Columbia, and nets and propellers don't mix very well.

 

[Rob Allen]

Sorry, folks, but the salmon discussion confuses me, still. I'm an inland guy who lives where we killed all anadromous fish years ago. And while we have similar discussions on predators with resident fish (Pelicans at Rocky Ford for example) the ones about salmon and steelhead still boggle my mind.

Every year or two (even before the internet) we're treated to statements from folks who are familiar with these fisheries about predators. Sea Lions, seals, Caspian Terns, Cormorants, smallmouth bass, now or soon Northern Pike, Northern Pikeminnow, etc., etc. Some folks cry "These critters are 'taking our fish'". And there's a popular cry to kill them in the act. And a complaint that rules prohibiting that killing are misguided at best, a conspiracy of enemies (Them!) at the worst, followed by suggestions of wanton violation of those rules (the Shoot, Shovel, and Shutup solutions).

It looks to me that wildlife are just trying to make a living like everyone else. It doesn't take long for a fish-eating creature to figure out where the outfall of a hatchery is, or the base of a fish ladder, or some other "fish-aggregator" is built. If you don't believe me, count the bald eagles at the Prince Rupert salmon boat dock when the fleet comes in. Anyway, once wildlife figures out where lunch is, they eat it. And they tell their buddies, and they eat there, too. In human terms, it seems a lot like the line leading up to the trailer where they hand out gummint cheese, or like the line of trout anglers below every bottom draw dam in the West. Eat where the food is, fish where the fish are. It's not reallly their fault we've skewed the catch per unit effort in the predators' favor, really.... We built this stuff.

So, should we kill wildlife for what seems like rational behavior? Really? Isn't there some other solution? Seal resistant nets 500 yards down from the hatchery outfall? Something? I don't hear the fish farming guys complaining about seals around their net pens.....do they know something we could use?

Who's at fault here?

I think it's clear humans are at fault regardless of our actions towards predators.

I think sea lions are slightly different than other predators in that they are preying on much rarer adults.(usually)

For example the pike minnow reward fishery targets predators that are targeting hundreds of thousands of smolts. A sea lions is preying on what are likely runs measuring in the hundreds, possibly less in some years.

Conversely with sea lions we are talking about fairly small number of predators vs 10s of thousands of birds or predatory fish..

These are just off the top of my head, they may or may not be all that valid.

 

[ABITNF]

Seals and sealions eat salmonid smolts too, not just adult fish. And aquaculture net pens do have anti predator nets around them but sealions tear at them and once a hole is made they will exploit it.

If we are going to 'manage' the pretty species, we have to manage the predator species too. Mankind is the top of the food chain and only we as a species can care for both the predators and the prey. No other species has the cognitive capacity to limit their harvest of prey with the idea that they're saving some for a rainy day. Argue that predators only take the aged, sickly, weak and unprotected all you want. These prey are taken because they're easy to harvest. Tip the scales in the predator's favour and they will not purposely leave much if anything behind. Nature is a bitch.

 

[JACKspASS]

I was told that sea lions only eat hatchery salmon

 

[skyriver]

We need more things like this. And more tracking info like this project did. I'm okay with some lethal depredation efforts, but I agree with you...it's our damn fault. And why are the sea lions doing so well? Maybe there's some research there that could help the Orcas? Here's the main link from Seattle Times. If you get blocked, clear your history and cookies and you should be able to view it.

Fish get stuck at Hood Canal Bridge. Will this giant contraption save them from the seals?

A hulking contraption will be installed at the Hood Canal Bridge this week. It might help young salmon get out to sea — and away from hungry seals.

www.seattletimes.com

If not, try this link:

Add-on structure will begin to address steelhead crisis at the Hood Canal Bridge |

The Hood Canal Bridge, which connects the Kitsap and Olympic peninsulas, has proven to be a dangerous impediment to juvenile steelhead trout. As many as half of the young migratory steelhead in Hood Canal may get picked off by seals, birds and other predators as the fish try to pass under the...

www.pugetsoundinstitute.org

 

[charles sullivan]

I don't care who is at fault. I don't see where a value judgement will change the paradigm.

 

[Rob Allen]

I don't care who is at fault. I don't see where a value judgement will change the paradigm.

Regardless what you think of the issue.. this is true.

 

[DerekWhipple]

I don't get the confusion. Salmon and steelhead are in real trouble in the Columbia, seals are not. Yes, we created the situation, but the dams unfortunately aren't coming out anytime soon.

 

[Yadwick]

So I started blasting......

I don't get the confusion. Salmon and steelhead are in real trouble in the Columbia, seals are not. Yes, we created the situation, but the dams unfortunately aren't coming out anytime soon.

So anyway i started blasting......

 

[Salmo_g]

So, should we kill wildlife for what seems like rational behavior?

Humans have modified the natural environment to the point that there isn't much natural left. Of course wildlife will generally behave according to optimal foraging theory. That theory says that animals will seek out the most calories with the least energy expenditure, something humans often do as well.

The best answer I have is, "It depends." Depends on what? It depends on our collective objective for managing planet earth, ultimately. As you may expect, there is no collective objective. We have a mis-mash of objectives, covering a very wide range of options. It ranges from the ultimate tree-hugger perspective of letting everything seek its own population level, and that means some populations will be extirpated from predation, and some predator populations will increase dramatically and find alternative prey, like wolves switching from elk to cattle, and coyotes and foxes eating your chickens. And then we have the super-red neck perspective of "kill all the wolves, grizzly bears, cougars, sea lions, seals, and any other predator that might prey on an animal that I would rather kill for myself." And then we have a whole lot of perspectives that are somewhere in between. And that is why I say that "it depends."

I've adopted a philosophy that since humans have created this mess, it falls on us to manage it. Develop management options that satisfy the greatest number of people (after first informing the people, cuz we don't need a whole lotta' dumb shit type people involved in making globally important decisions), and then try to implement those management options. That means that we will kill some number of predators that either become too numerous or prey on too many of the other species we also wish to protect. I'm OK with that. For example, I kinda' like the WA wolf management policy. The "let 'em all live" and the "kill 'em all" segments of society hate it, which suggests we might have it about right. The policy allows a set number of wolf packs, meaning we will have wolves, and we will accept some level of livestock loss, but we will also control the wolf populations so that it doesn't over run the state, and we have wolves snatching little kids off the sidewalks on their way home from kindergarten. On the flip side, grizzly bear recovery may be too successful in Montana, and perhaps some grizzly hunting should be resumed, not so much for prey species protection, but for human protection. All or nothing approaches just don't seem as rational to me as doing something in between. But then I want to keep some of what's left of the natural world.

 

[jact55]

Humans have modified the natural environment to the point that there isn't much natural left. Of course wildlife will generally behave according to optimal foraging theory. That theory says that animals will seek out the most calories with the least energy expenditure, something humans often do as well.

The best answer I have is, "It depends." Depends on what? It depends on our collective objective for managing planet earth, ultimately. As you may expect, there is no collective objective. We have a mis-mash of objectives, covering a very wide range of options. It ranges from the ultimate tree-hugger perspective of letting everything seek its own population level, and that means some populations will be extirpated from predation, and some predator populations will increase dramatically and find alternative prey, like wolves switching from elk to cattle, and coyotes and foxes eating your chickens. And then we have the super-red neck perspective of "kill all the wolves, grizzly bears, cougars, sea lions, seals, and any other predator that might prey on an animal that I would rather kill for myself." And then we have a whole lot of perspectives that are somewhere in between. And that is why I say that "it depends."

I've adopted a philosophy that since humans have created this mess, it falls on us to manage it. Develop management options that satisfy the greatest number of people (after first informing the people, cuz we don't need a whole lotta' dumb shit type people involved in making globally important decisions), and then try to implement those management options. That means that we will kill some number of predators that either become too numerous or prey on too many of the other species we also wish to protect. I'm OK with that. For example, I kinda' like the WA wolf management policy. The "let 'em all live" and the "kill 'em all" segments of society hate it, which suggests we might have it about right. The policy allows a set number of wolf packs, meaning we will have wolves, and we will accept some level of livestock loss, but we will also control the wolf populations so that it doesn't over run the state, and we have wolves snatching little kids off the sidewalks on their way home from kindergarten. On the flip side, grizzly bear recovery may be too successful in Montana, and perhaps some grizzly hunting should be resumed, not so much for prey species protection, but for human protection. All or nothing approaches just don't seem as rational to me as doing something in between. But then I want to keep some of what's left of the natural world.

Well put.
It's going to have to be touch and feel.
we like to think we know what we are doing, but with nature, i dont think we know shit. So tinkering is best. Admiting when wrong, trying to fix it, and find a balance. Sort of what mother nature does anyways.

if all else fails, and it doenst go well...blame California. For just about everything. Wish they'd keep their seals and sea lions, just like their human population. But instead they're all up here eating all our salmon.

 

[RRSmith]

I like this Aldo Leopold quote: "to keep every cog and wheel is the first precaution of intelligent tinkering".

For those not familiar with Leopold (who died in 1948), he is widely considered to be the father of modern conservation and the founder of wildlife management and environmental ethics. I kept his book "A Sand County Almanac" on my desk for much of the 35 years I spent in the fish and wildlife public agency business.

When it comes to managing salmon, I found that we have to both manage our expectations and pick our battles. In this age of the Anthropocene, we no longer have all of the cogs and wheels needed for intelligent tinkering...

 

[wanderingrichard]

Well, I don't think this article helps any one regarding Oregon Salmon:

Oregon salmon populations improving, but study finds little direct connection to billions spent on recovery

Despite roughly $9 billion in taxpayer money spent over four decades, the study's author said he could "not find evidence of an increase in wild fish.”

www.kgw.com

 

[cchinook45]

Sorry, folks, but the salmon discussion confuses me, still. I'm an inland guy who lives where we killed all anadromous fish years ago. And while we have similar discussions on predators with resident fish (Pelicans at Rocky Ford for example) the ones about salmon and steelhead still boggle my mind.

Every year or two (even before the internet) we're treated to statements from folks who are familiar with these fisheries about predators. Sea Lions, seals, Caspian Terns, Cormorants, smallmouth bass, now or soon Northern Pike, Northern Pikeminnow, etc., etc. Some folks cry "These critters are 'taking our fish'". And there's a popular cry to kill them in the act. And a complaint that rules prohibiting that killing are misguided at best, a conspiracy of enemies (Them!) at the worst, followed by suggestions of wanton violation of those rules (the Shoot, Shovel, and Shutup solutions).

It looks to me that wildlife are just trying to make a living like everyone else. It doesn't take long for a fish-eating creature to figure out where the outfall of a hatchery is, or the base of a fish ladder, or some other "fish-aggregator" is built. If you don't believe me, count the bald eagles at the Prince Rupert salmon boat dock when the fleet comes in. Anyway, once wildlife figures out where lunch is, they eat it. And they tell their buddies, and they eat there, too. In human terms, it seems a lot like the line leading up to the trailer where they hand out gummint cheese, or like the line of trout anglers below every bottom draw dam in the West. Eat where the food is, fish where the fish are. It's not reallly their fault we've skewed the catch per unit effort in the predators' favor, really.... We built this stuff.

So, should we kill wildlife for what seems like rational behavior? Really? Isn't there some other solution? Seal resistant nets 500 yards down from the hatchery outfall? Something? I don't hear the fish farming guys complaining about seals around their net pens.....do they know something we could use?

Who's at fault here?

O.D.F.W. is the greatest danger to our salmonoids.

 

[tkww]

O.D.F.W. is the greatest danger to our salmonoids.

W.D.F.W would like a word.

 

[Shad]

Many natural predators have become a major problem for salmonids (largely due to circumstances humans have created), but none is anywhere near the problem humans are. We not only eat them, but we cheat to catch them in bulk and systematically destroy their spawning and rearing habitats by developing warerfronts for our viewing pleasure.

Yes, there are many others, but among all predators, only we have the intelligence and means necessary to exercise restraint....

 

[Herkileez]

Many natural predators have become a major problem for salmonids (largely due to circumstances humans have created), but none is anywhere near the problem humans are. We not only eat them, but we cheat to catch them in bulk and systematically destroy their spawning and rearing habitats by developing warerfronts for our viewing pleasure.

Yes, there are many others, but among all predators, only we have the intelligence and means necessary to exercise restraint....

We're definitely a predator on steroids, building our own dependency on an idustry attempting to supply a worldwide demand at a rate that is unsustainable...then blaming pinapeds for entering the rivers to eat our fish (We have a choice, they don't). We can fix this by dialling back our outdated commercial fishery...but we won't.